The Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) negotiations have only just begun, but already hundreds of corporations are
weighing in to let negotiators know what they hope to get out of the
agreement. In many cases, multinational
corporations submit their views to both sides, and one shudders to imagine
teams of European and U.S. negotiators lining up with identical talking
points representing the views of “their” corporations, and speedily agreeing on
“uncontroversial” sections that favor the interests of corporations over consumers.

“Science-based
risk assessment, as the foundation for regulatory decisions, must not be
overruled by an incorrect (and politically
driven) application of the precautionary principle, as currently applied by the
EU” (Croplife America, a lobbying group of U.S. pesticide corporations that includes genetically-modified-organism (GMO) giant Monsanto)

“Finally, the EU’s political approach in regulating crops
enhanced with traits achieved through modern biotechnology procedures is a
concern to U.S. wheat producers. The EU biotechnology approval process is slow
and often influenced more by politics
than science, creating uncertainty
and deterring new investment in wheat research… Science and market preferences, not politics, should be the determinants.” (U.S. Wheat Associates)

“The current 'asynchronous
approval' situation is caused by many factors, including risk assessment
guidelines that are not aligned and increasing politically-motivated delays in product approvals.” (National
Grain & Feed Association and North American Export Grain Association, lobbying groups comprised of the largest U.S. agribusinesses, such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland)

“International trade rules
fully support trade in products of biotechnology for planting, processing and
marketing, subject to science-based
regulation… Politically motivated
bans or moratoria by WTO member states are not consistent with members’ WTO
obligations.” (National Corn Growers Association)

“The
implementation of production standards based on politics or popular thought instead of science will do nothing more than eliminate family operations and
drive up costs to consumers.” (National Cattlemen's Beef Association, a factory-farm-supporting lobbying group for the beef industry)

“What is deeply concerning about
the EU’s overall approach to SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] issues, however, is that its political body is frequently given the
ability to override the EU’s own scientific
authority’s findings to instead establish restrictions on products based
typically on animal welfare or consumer preferences.” (National Milk Producers
Federation & U.S. Dairy Export Council)

Product Safety

“Significant barriers to further alignment, namely politics and differences in regulatory approach, remain on both sides of the Atlantic. Our experience has also shown that politics and differences in regulatory philosophy are fundamentally the root causes for differences in toy safety standards… Frequently, standards that are stricter than their international counterparts are promulgated due to political influence or the (often unstated) desire to erect technical barriers to trade, and not predicated by science or risk factors.” (Toy Industry Association and Toy Industries of Europe)

“We would like to highlight the fact that these regulatory differences are often politically motivated… We regret that the differences in regulations in the EU and US are often caused by the result of politics rather than a different approach to ensuring safety.” (Toy Industries of Europe)

“Such discussions
need to take place between technical, not political
or administrative, entities and need to make business sense for the
organizations involved.” (ASME, a lobbying group for engineers -- the first U.S. "non-profit" entity convicted for violating antitrust laws)

But
what do these corporations mean when they use the word “political?" One possibility is anything they happen to
disagree with.

But let’s give them
slightly more credit than that –- what happens if we substitute the words
democracy/democratic for politics/political?
After all, the "political" bodies the corporations fear are the
democratically elected representatives of the people.

Now we see:

Croplife (i.e. Monsanto) complaining about the
European Commission’s democratically
driven application of the precautionary principle, which restricts GMOs.

U.S. agribusinesses decrying democratically-motivated delays in
approving GMOs and other products that raise food safety concerns.

The beef industry
worrying about production standards based on democracy or "popular thought."

ASME wanting to keep democratic entities out of the room so that regulation “makes
business sense for the organizations involved."

The idea that we can choose science over democracy when making our
regulations is, of course, nonsense. Science doesn’t tell us how we should decide between safer toys and
cheaper toys (or larger profits for toy companies). Science doesn’t tell us how cautious we
should be about eating food that has been genetically modified to increase farm
industry profits. Science doesn’t tell
us how to value cheaper meat and milk versus safeguards that limit the use of antibiotics
or acidic carcass cleaning and that allow animals to live in a cage large enough
to turn around in.

Science can inform the unavoidable trade-offs in our policy choices. But in the end we, the people, not they, the
unelected trade negotiators and their corporate advisors, must decide how to strike
the balance.

As the TAFTA
negotiations get underway, this attempt by industry insiders to concoct an
argument that they should be involved in writing regulation, but our
democratically elected bodies should not, is yet another reminder of the danger
of allowing an agreement to be negotiated behind closed doors, with hundreds of
corporate “advisors,” and without transparency to the public or even our democratically elected
representatives.

These satanic corporate scum need to be stopped at all costs. We're fighting hard in Europe to stop the evil, but the US people need to rise up soon and realise how they are guinea pig debt slaves living for the elite's benefits only.

Post a comment

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Name is required to post a comment

Please enter a valid email address

Invalid URL

Please enable JavaScript if you would like to comment on this blog.

About Us

Eyes on Trade is a blog by the staff of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch (GTW) division. GTW aims to promote democracy by challenging corporate globalization, arguing that the current globalization model is neither a random inevitability nor "free trade." Eyes on Trade is a space for interested parties to share information about globalization and trade issues, and in particular for us to share our watchdogging insights with you! GTW director Lori Wallach's initial post explains it all.

Author Bios

Contact

Public Citizen Blogs

Citizen VoxPublic Citizen's main blog curated by its staff from the Congress Watch, Energy, and Health Research divisions.

Consumer Law & PolicyA diverse group of lawyers and law professors who practice, teach, or write about consumer law and policy.

Texas VoxA blog by the staff of Public Citizen’s Texas office focusing on ways to lower electric bills, increase clean and renewable sources of energy and combat greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for global climate change.